Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that results are 'full provenanced product records' where price comes from the product page of record with priceDate and priceCite, and specs carry source url and accessedAt — exactly the kind of provenance an agent needs before trusting the data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core action and the required-category constraint are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information (search scope, category source, provenance of returns, empty-query behavior). It is dense but not padded; minor cost is a slightly long final sentence packing three provenance facts.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With only two parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description covers everything needed: what is searched, how to supply the category, what an empty query does, and what the returned records contain including provenance. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation or interpretation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50%, with the `query` parameter undocumented in the schema, and the description compensates well: it defines the searched fields, gives concrete example values ('snapdragon 5000mah', 'oled 120hz'), and states the empty-query default behavior. The `category` semantics are partly duplicated from the schema, keeping it from a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search one product category by free-text query') and names the fields searched (name, brand, spec values). It is clear what the tool does, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling find_products, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives concrete operational guidance: category must be a slug from list_product_categories, and an empty query returns the whole category. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over find_products or compare_products, so the alternative-selection logic is left implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.